and Dan is writing about it.
It is not a column, so Dan plays it straight for the most part.
One thing to note. In the middle of the story, Dan writes about a fan's encounter with Manny:
""Oh my God, I touched him!," said a man who was wearing a Curt Schilling jersey and appeared to be more than 50 years old."
How excited do you think Dan got when he witnessed this scene?
6 comments:
Dan obsesses about how old people wear Schilling jerseys.
Shaughnessy's and MacMullen's columns about Manny seemed like carbon copies. Why did we need two stories on this topic? They both seem to despise him.
Well, the word around the campfire is that one of the big three sports writers at the Globe will be axed when they down-size.
MacMullen and Shank are both trying to justify their own existence.
They've been trying to get people to hate Manny for years. Guess what guys? Us, stupid fans love the guy. No matter how often you point out his foibles people are always going to chant "Man-ny, Man-ny!". I bet Shank will refuse to vote for Manny when he's up for the Hall of Fame.
Technically, Dan wrote the news story. In the paper the story did not include a head shot and it is not listed with his other columns on the web. That's why there was so little opinion.
Check out the video clips of the interview with Manny's agent on nesn.com. The agent did not appear nervous and his effort to answer questions was not weak. Dan's characterization of his performance was nothing more than an attempt to appear superior.
Also on the video, you can hear Dan repeatedly harping about the end of last season.
Aren't news reporters, as opposed to columnists, supposed to be objective? That's all we ever hear when newspaper types lecture us as if we're a bunch of intransigent children: Columnists get to have opinions, news reporters don't.
If news reporters are supposed to be unbiased, why would you put a columnist who has repeatedly ripped into Manny Ramirez in the position of filing what is supposed to be an unbiased news story on him? Like we're all supposed to forget all of the CHB's rip jobs?
If they axe MacMullen and not Shaughnessy, I will never so much as glance at a Globe newspaper or website again. Not even close to kidding. I already boycott the CHB's columns and don't read any of the mainstream sports press most days, particularly about baseball, but it will be an all-out boycott if they prove they have such a low regard for their readers that they'd keep the columnist who has repeatedly demonstrated his utter contempt for both his subject and his audience over a truly great reporter like jackie macmullen.
not that i feel strongly, or anything.
"Shaughnessy's and MacMullen's columns about Manny seemed like carbon copies. Why did we need two stories on this topic?"
Well, it's like this: You know when a garbage truck comes rumbling down the street, and in it are three people: One doing the driving, one that takes care of the trash, and another guy (usually squished in the middle) who is there just because the union rules says he has to be there.
Shaughnessy and MacMullen are squished in the middle. They are fossilized figureheads of a sinking enterprise. Their 'entitlements' stipulate that they stick around and copy each other's work.
Post a Comment